عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

"Resolution No. (246): "Ruling on Zakah of Associations and Unions' Funds"

Date Added : 04-12-2017

Resolution No. (246) by the Board of Iftaa', Research and Islamic Studies:

"Ruling on Zakah of Associations and Unions' Funds"

Date 2/Rabi' Al-Thani/1439 AH, corresponding to 21/11/2017 AD

 

All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of The Worlds, and may His peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all of his family and companions.

During its 13th session held on the above date, the Board of Iftaa', Research and Islamic Studies reviewed the letter sent from the Chairman of Jordan Housing Developers Association, and reads as follows:" We would like to ask about the Sharia Ruling on the Zakah's Nisaab {Minimum amount liable for Zakah}of the nonprofit funds of the Associations and Unions such as Jordan Housing Developers Association whose incomes consist of membership fees and other members' annual subscriptions. Moreover, these funds are distributed on the association's activities, employees' salaries, rents and many other activities. Yet, the aforementioned association is a nonprofit party and aims to develop the career of constructing apartments and buildings as is the case with many other unions. The statute of the Association is included in the letter?

After prolonged deliberations, the Board decided the following:

Zakah is a commandment of Allah to a Muslim with the conditions clarified by the scripts of Sharia and the first of which is "Possession" referred to, by jurists, as "Specific owner" since it is stated in [Nihayat Al-Muhtaj vol.3/pp.127]: "Being possessed by a specific owner is among the conditions that make Zakah on wealth obligatory."

Similar to endowment funds, the Zakah condition (Specific owner or owners) doesn't apply to the afore parties. 

Moreover, Zakah is due on co-operative associations and other organizations that have a specific owner

or multiple shareholders. And Allah Knows Best. 

 

Chairman of Iftaa` Board,

Grand Mufti of Jordan,

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh

Vice Chairman, Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh

Prof. Abdullah Al-Fawaz, Member

Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat, Member

Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Esa, Member

Dr. Majid Darawsheh, Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Al-Hijjawi, Member

Judge Khalid Woraikat, Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Zo`bi, Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

I vowed to give a specific charity if a certain matter came to pass — what is the ruling on giving that charity before the matter is realised?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Fulfilling a vow (nadhr) is obligatory, in accordance with the word of Allah the Almighty: "And let them fulfil their vows." [Al-Ḥajj/ 29] And the saying of our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: "Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him; and whoever vows to disobey Him, let him not disobey Him." (Reported by al-Bukhārī.)
The Shāfiʿī scholars distinguished between a financial vow (nadhr mālī) and a bodily vow (nadhr badanī). They permitted the fulfilment of a financial vow to be brought forward — before the stipulated condition is met — but did not permit the same for a bodily vow, which may only be fulfilled after the condition has actually been realised.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is permissible to bring forward the fulfilment of a financial vow before the condition stipulated in it is met — such as saying: 'If I am healed, I vow to free a slave' or 'to give such-and-such in charity' — just as it is permissible to pay zakāh in advance. This is unlike a bodily vow, such as fasting." [Asnā al-Maṭālib, vol. 4/P.246]
Imām al-Bājūrī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Like expiation other than fasting, a financial vow — such as saying: 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave for the sake of Allah,' or 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave on the Friday following the recovery' — it is permissible to bring it forward before the recovery in the first case, and before the Friday following the recovery in the second case." [Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim, Vol.2/P.596] And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What are the legal and religious consequences for a charitable organization in the event that a sacrificial animal is damaged or spoiled after slaughter?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Charitable organizations entrusted with slaughtering sacrificial animals (uḍḥiyyah) and distributing their meat on behalf of their owners are obligated to safeguard the meat from spoilage, damage, theft, and any other harm. This is because such organizations act as agents (wukalā') on behalf of those offering the sacrifice, and an agent holds what is entrusted to them in trust (amānah) — whether they receive a wage for their work or act on a voluntary basis.
If the sacrificial animal is damaged after slaughter during the processes of packaging, transportation, or storage due to negligence or oversight — whether on the part of the organization's own staff overseeing the operation, or on the part of third parties contracted by the organization such as transport or shipping companies — then liability falls upon the negligent party, who is required to compensate for the value of the sacrifice. It is not permissible to cover such compensation from the organization's other donor funds.
However, if the damage to the sacrificial animal occurs without any negligence in its preservation and storage on the part of any party involved in the transportation, shipping, or storage process, and is instead attributable to force majeure circumstances beyond their control, then no financial liability is borne by any party in such a case. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Is it incumbent on a husband to pay the alimony of his wife if she had left him and stayed at her parent`s without his permission?

When a wife leaves her house, and stays at her parent`s without asking her husband, she is considered a Nashiz (wife who refuses to abide by her husband’s orders), and so she doesn`t deserve an alimony.

Which is better for a traveler: fasting or breaking the fast?

Fasting is better, unless it causes hardship—in that case, breaking the fast is better.

See More